JAGAPAT SINGH DUGAR Vs. PURAN CHAND NAHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two interesting questions raised on this appeal. They will be taken in their logical order.

(2.) The first has reference to the point of the authority of counsel to conclude this transaction of compromise of a pending suit. It must be admitted that the compromise was of a somewhat singular character. One circumstance reflects the greatest credit upon the senior counsel for the defendant in the case, because by that compromise he was elected by both parties as the person whose verdict would be taken either as final judgment, or, at least, for consideration, on the subject of the amount to be paid to the plaintiff in the action.

(3.) Their Lordships are aware that the authority of counsel to compromise action upon a general footing is not in question, under what is known as "the mandate of wig and gown." But their Lordships are of opinion that the compromise disclosed in these proceedings was of a highly exceptional, if not unique, character. And they incline to the view that it would have demanded the express authority on the part of counsel from his client to go the length that counsel here went. In point of fact, what happened was that the client upon one side had his fortunes committed by his counsel to the determination of the counsel for the other side, and, as stated, without any express authority, to make a bargain of that character. Their Lordships, however, do not finally decide this point, although they have the doubts which have just been expressed.